4.6 Article

Type 1 diabetes-predisposing MHC alleles influence the selection of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) 65-specific T cells in a transgenic model

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 166, 期 2, 页码 1370-1379

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.166.2.1370

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI 14764] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic factors that contribute to the etiology of type 1 diabetes are still largely uncharacterized. However, the genes of the MHC (HLA in humans) have been consistently associated with susceptibility to disease. We have used several transgenic mice generated in our laboratory, bearing susceptible or resistant HLA alleles, in the absence of endogenous MHC class II (A betao), to study immune responses to the autoantigen glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) 65 and its relevance in determining the association between autoreactivity and disease pathogenesis. Mice bearing diabetes-susceptible haplotypes, HLA DR3 (DRB1*0301) or DQ8 (DQB1*0302), singly or in combination showed spontaneous T cell reactivity to rat GAD 65, which is highly homologous to the self Ag, mouse GAD 65. The presence of diabetes-resistant or neutral alleles, such as HLA DQ6 (DQB1*0602) and DR2 (DRB1*1502) prevented the generation of any self-reactive responses to rat GAD. In addition, unmanipulated A betao/DR3, A betao/ DQ8, and A betao/DR3/DQ8 mice recognized specific peptides, mainly from the N-terminal region of the GAD 65 molecule. Most of these regions are conserved between human, mouse, and rat GAD 65. Further analysis revealed that the reactivity was mediated primarily by CD4(+) T cells. Stimulation of these T cells by rat GAD 65 resulted in the generation of a mixed Th1/Th2 cytokine profile in the A betao/DR3/DQ8, A betao/DR3, and A betao/DQ8 mice. Thus, the presence of diabetes-associated genes determines whether immune tolerance is maintained to islet autoantigens, but autoreactivity in itself is not sufficient to induce diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据